New Fundamental Text?

[Kuppo Shakur]

Usually, when someone wants to start learning about communism, the first thing they come upon (or are directed to) is the Communist Manifesto.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with this writing, it is certainly a product of its time. When one reads it, one is bombarded with plenty of out-dated allusions, and terminology that can be quite perplexing in today's lexicon.
Should we be trying to popularize a different text that describes the fundamentals of communism, that is more modern and relevant to today's revolutionary situations?
Are there any writings that already exist that could be used for this purpose, or should a new one be formulated? If the latter, what should be the scope of such a fundamental text?

[Widerstand]

I can only recommend Ernest Mandel's Introduction To Marxism. Very concise and easy to understand, however it might be a little hard to come by.

Then of course there are various texts by groups active today, in the form of pamphlets and such. I could name some works about Anarchism, but as for Marxism, I have no clue.

I'd be all in favor of formulating a new central text, however actually doing this might turn out quite problematic.

[anticap]

I think the Manifesto reads wonderfully even today.

[Kuppo Shakur]

I think the Manifesto reads wonderfully even today.
Of course, it is vital reading for any revolutionary, but more in a historical sense than anything else.
There is just too much in it about events and circumstances that simply don't apply anymore, and it is also too regionally specific in some areas.
There's plenty of new stuff going on in the worker's movement that is not covered well enough in any supposed introductory texts.

I'm not suggesting we abandon the Communist Manifesto, I just think we need to popularize some modern fundamental texts, rather than trying to apply 150 year old documents to our current actions.

[Weezer]

Although it predates the Manifesto, I think Engel's the Principles of Communism has aged better.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

[Tablo]

The Manifesto is a poor representation of Marxism to begin with so I think it should be chunked as a beginners text.

[Q]

The Manifesto is a poor representation of Marxism to begin with
Why?

[Zanthorus]

The Manifesto was going out of date even before it was published. Remember the passage, "All the powers of old europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police spies"? Francois Guizot had been dismissed as prime minister the day before the Manifesto was first published in German. Metternich was toppled three weeks later. Despite that, the general principles enunciated in the work are good, despite frequent misinterpretation by those looking to discredit Marx.

The problem with the Manifesto lies, at least in part, on what it misses out. It talks about overproduction crises and the anarchy of the market, but it doesn't even attempt a basic theoretical explanation of these.

[Tablo]

Why?
Read the ten planks of the manifesto.

[Zanthorus]

Read the ten planks of the manifesto.

Well, there's nothing in there that couldn't have been misinterpreted by failing to read the foreword at least. Also the 9th demand is still relevant.

[Tablo]

Well, there's nothing in there that couldn't have been misinterpreted by failing to read the foreword at least. Also the 9th demand is still relevant.
I know not all of them are incorrect, but the ten planks are misleading. Marx and Engels politics just weren't full developed back then.

[ZeroNowhere]

I know not all of them are incorrect, but the ten planks are misleading. Marx and Engels politics just weren't full developed back then.Um, as opposed to this resolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1869/inheritance-report.htm)?


In treating of the laws of inheritance, we necessarily suppose that private property in the means of production continues to exist. If it did no longer exist among the living, it could not be transferred from them, and by them, after their death. All measures, in regard to the right of inheritance, can therefore only relate to a state of social transition, where, on the one hand, the present economical base of society is not yet transformed, but where, on the other hand, the working masses have gathered strength enough to enforce transitory measures calculated to bring about an ultimate radical change of society.

Considered from this standpoint, changes of the laws of inheritance form only part of a great many other transitory measures tending to the same end.

These transitory measures, as to inheritance, can only be:

a. Extension of the inheritance duties already existing in many states, and the application of the funds hence derived to purposes of social emancipation.

b. Limitation of the testamentary right of inheritance, which -- as distinguished from the intestate or family right of inheritance -- appears as arbitrary and superstitious exaggeration even of the principles of private property themselves.

[anticap]

Inheritance is a sickening expression of aristocratic tendencies.